[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Fwd: ICANN Compliance data re: whois related complaints

[Owen Smigelski]

Hi all,

As requested on this morning’s call, I am sharing the data I collected regarding all whois related complaints reported by ICANN Contractual Compliance between 2012 to 2021. Please see the explanation below regarding my analysis and formatting. 

There were a total of 242 whois QR complaints (versus 198,688 whois inaccuracy complaints). 

The link is shareable and anyone can leave comments if there are any questions (and also happy to answer questions via email or a future meeting). 

Regards,

Owen

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> Hi Accuracy Scoping Team leadership,
> 
> The CPH team has been considering additional metrics/data that could help guide the scoping team’s work. One relevant data point we considered is ICANN Compliance data regarding whois related complaints. Because of my experience creating and refining these metrics, I volunteered to compile them. We think that the results may benefit our work, and wanted to provide the data to you for review/consideration first. 
> 
> Here is a link to a Google Sheet of the data:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qj6mjk-uR6YQbum5k6Y5sH8Hk0JDJDHCdwC8EEqHjtY/edit#gid=695500110
> 
> The “Summary” tab includes all whois inaccuracy complaints filed by year from 2012 to December 2021 (the last month available). The “Raw Data” tab is all of the data from icann.org, including links to each report cited. I included all whois related complaints (such as whois unavailable and whois format) because sometimes those complaint types receive inaccuracy allegations). 
> 
> For the summary, I only totaled the whois inaccuracy complaints. I also did not include complaints that were closed before 1st notice in the summary, as those are closed as out of scope (not about actual inaccuracy, no evidence, domain suspended at time of submission, etc). Whois QR and Whois ARS tickets are not included in the annual totals as well. 
> 
> Although the numbers fluctuate between 2012 and 2017, the total volume begins to drop significantly at the beginning of 2018 (before the effective date of the GDPR). There is another significant drop in September 2020, which I think is the month that Compliance switched from Kayako to NSp. 
> 
> Although the CPH is not clear what conclusions may be drawn from this data, we think this is something that should be shared with the entire scoping team (and be incorporated into our report). Happy to answer any questions, or provide an editable version (I have a few formals in the sheet that I don’t want modified). 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Owen
> (On behalf of the CPH scoping team)
>